Things are Starting to Warm Up. 21

[dik]

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...mothers-bear-brunt-climate-change-2022-06-14/

a sign of things to come... hold on to your hats, folks.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Tomfh]

I don't think it's red herring

I mean it's a red herring in terms of the policy actions. CO2 is rising due to human emissions. The question is what do we do about it? That's the real debate. On one side are those who want to shut down fossil fuels ASAP. This side emphasises the increase in CO2. The other side of the debate fears the proposals to radically cut fossil fuel use, so they dispute how much humans have increased CO2.

 

[dik]

There's almost no activity considering how disasterous this could be. Most of it appears to be doing 'lip service' instead of real activity. I usually don't get excited about stuff, but this can become 'real stuff' with huge social and political outcomes.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

Alarmists have no solutions, and can't even identify the problem. They just worry about the sky falling.

 

[dik]

I can not only identify the problem, but I can see it daily... I don't know how to stop the sky from falling and no one seems to be interested.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

More good news...

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...-cripples-biden-efforts-combat-climate-change

this says a lot about the country with over a hundred million in population having the highest carbon footprint per capita... maybe another reason for concern.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

All that says is that the deep state bureaucrats don't have authority from Congress to make all the decisions they have been making.

There are a number of countries with higher CO2 emission than the US, including your own.

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

 

[dik]

and Australia... but with a lot less than one hundred million population, that's why I added the qualifier. Canada's is higher than Australia, but we have a bit of an excuse... small population, and a very cold climate and huge travel distances. China's per capita footprint is half the US and India's is about 1/10.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SnTMan]

What that says is that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats shall not impose policy on the country. Congress shall DO IT'S JOB and legislate.

That's the intent as I understand it. We'll see...

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[dik]

Sn... I don't think it's going to happen... they haven't indicated that they are up to the job yet.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[GregLocock]

I learned something interesting about the IPCC's language. Apparently when they say they are moderately confident that effect X is due to CO2, moderately confident means 50/50.

So the the layman if someone authoritative says they are moderately confident that something will happen, I bet most of them would not be expecting a toss of a coin.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[SnTMan]

Agreed, I've got no faith in 'em.

I have difficulty envisioning how the extra-constitutional behavior of my government is corrected....

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[EnzoAus]

Most people accept the IPCC consensus that climate change is associated with human produced CO2. The problem as expressed by many in the forum is a realistic engineering perspective that a reduction in CO2 is not easy.
Unfortunately the debate has been monopolised politically by extreme greens who believe that energy change is necessary AND technically easy and cheap, and the extreme conservatives, who believe that there is no need for action AND replacement of fossil fuels is difficult. Both positions are only partly correct, but their incorrect assertions have confused a whole lot of people.

 

[Tomfh]

I learned something interesting about the IPCC's language. Apparently when they say they are moderately confident that effect X is due to CO2, moderately confident means 50/50.

Where did you read that? I've seen different sorts of terms. Equally opaque of course - we can't go telling people the plain unvarnished truth, can we now? They mightn't take things seriously enough.

 

[GregLocock]

Sorry (memory error), their phrase is 'medium confidence', not moderate, and the definition is 'about as likely as not'. 50/50.

https://theconversation.com/lost-in-translation-confidence-and-certainty-in-climate-science-17181

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[GregLocock]

Linguistic magic out of the way, let's have a look at why nobody has a serious plan.

Take a deep breath.

Money.

So far governments have pandered to their electorate with the field of dreams approach, make things a bit easy for big ticket renewable schemes to get approval and become financially attractive to their backers.

While this has resulted in a somewhat greener (discuss) grid, it is undeniable that it is less robust. Most of the hard yards in CO2 reduction have been by substituting natural gas for coal, not windmills and silicon. That lack of robustness is a direct function of the lack of storage that the intermittent renewables need, and the inability of conventional fossil fuel and nuclear plants to operate economically as intermittent suppliers. Yes gas peakers can do that reliably, but they cost a lot to operate, $500/MWh (ie 50c/kWh) at the moment is not even break even.

As we have discovered in the past couple of years, if first world governments feel like it they can borrow $100000 per taxpayer to deal with 'existential' issues. This will of course have to be paid off by future generations and/or inflated into insignificance. So how much of our grandchildren's money do we need to steal to stop them moaning about climate change (well, infinite, there will always be a new crisis to solve)?

As of this instant Australia needs about 131 TWh of coal powered electricity per year, so as in that other thread, at $10B per GW for (expensive US style) nuclear or a gas peaker reliant basically renewable system, we'd need 15 GW, or $150B, or another $15000 per taxpayer. So given that we've just spent 5x that on a pandemic which mostly harvested a lot of very old people, money wise it seems doable, for Australia. But... India, China, and eventually Africa will need to also spend that much, and they haven't got the dough. Or the will. If they had the money they'd spend it on something else (hopefully schools and hospitals, not Mercedes and New York penthouses).






Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[hokie66]

dik,

You said a million population, not 100 million. Don't correct it now, as it would make my post in error.

 

[EnzoAus]

Greg, I'm presently working with a colleague on trying to see what a (largely) non-fossil energy mix could look like in the National Energy Market (East coast of Australia). We have been using the NEM 30 min interval data to look at the actual energy mix which then allows theoretical substitutions to be considered.

My data for the fossil energy mix for 2021 is very close to yours (138.2TWh). Interestingly though, the peak fossil usage during 2021 was 24GW (evening peaks 6th Jul, 21 Jul 24 Jan) further increasing your capex estimates if this was be replaced by new nuclear/gas plant. It is obvious form the extract below that solar and wind were not able to shoulder the burden at these times, despite the considerable investment that has already been made. And batteries - that is another costly story.

Extract of Electricity Data from Australia's National Electricity Market (2021)

We really need a lot more mainstream transparent discussion on what the future energy mix looks like under the various scenarios and what it is going to cost.

 

[dik]

Sorry Hokie, my error... over 100 million population. There are a whole bunch of little countries with per capita outputs that are higher. A BPS for your correction...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

No worries. I think most things to do with AGW are off by about that much, anyway.

 

[TugboatEng]

We really need a lot more mainstream transparent discussion on what the future energy mix looks like under the various scenarios and what it is going to cost.

That's not going to happen. The mainstream has declared war on discussion. Anything contrary to the mainstream will be labeled as misinformation/disinformation. As a person you will be labeled a denialists for simply asking questions.